The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, February 13, 2015

According
to Gary Samore, President Obama’s former non-proliferation adviser, at
the beginning of the current round of negotiations, the United States
was demanding that Iran significantly reduce its stock of centrifuges to
1,500, but in doing so dropped the longstanding U.S. policy that Iran
eliminate its centrifuges completely.

The lead editorial of the Washington Post on February 5, 2015, expressed the growing concern in elite circles with the contours of the emerging nuclear accord between Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany).1 Part of the concern emanates from the change in the goals of Western negotiators: rather than eliminate Iran’s potential to build nuclear weapons, they now want to restrict Iranian capabilities, which would leave Tehran in a position to break out of any restrictions in the future.2

The best way to evaluate the impending nuclear agreement is to look at the statements of high-levels officials who have been involved in the negotiations. While not all of the details of the agreement have been made public, elements have been disclosed in the international media that are deeply worrying.

For example, there is the issue of the number of centrifuges that Iran will be allowed to retain. A centrifuge is a machine that separates uranium gas into two isotopes: U-238, which does not release nuclear energy, and U-235, which, when split, can release the energy for either a nuclear reactor or an atomic bomb. The enrichment process involves producing uranium with increasing percentages of U-235. At 90 percent purity, the uranium is characterized as weapons-grade.

Iran currently has 19,000 centrifuges, 9,000 of which are running and 10,000 that are installed but not operating. Israel’s position is that Iran should have zero centrifuges. The reason is that if Iran truly needs enriched uranium for civilian purposes, it could import enriched uranium as do roughly 15 other countries, such as Canada, Mexico, and Spain. The Israeli position is in line with six UN Security Council resolutions that were adopted between 2006 and 2010, with the support of Russia and China. If Iran eliminated all of its centrifuges and then chose to build new centrifuges, the process would take four to five years. There would be ample time to detect Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium beyond what is needed for civilian purposes and to organize an international response.

According to Gary Samore, President Obama’s former non-proliferation adviser, at the beginning of the current round of negotiations, the United States was demanding that Iran significantly reduce its stock of centrifuges to 1,500, but in doing so dropped the longstanding U.S. policy that Iran eliminate its centrifuges completely.3

The numbers are important. In a scenario of “breakout,” in which the Iranians race to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for their first atomic bomb, the number of centrifuges largely determines the amount of time the Iranians will need to accomplish this goal.

In addition to the number of centrifuges that Iran has, there is also the issue of the amount of enriched uranium that Iran has already stockpiled. With enough low-enriched uranium, Iran can make a final push to weapons-grade uranium for an atomic bomb. Robert Einhorn, the former special advisor for nonproliferation and arms control during the Obama administration, has calculated that if Iran uses 1,500 kilograms of low-enriched uranium and inserts it into 2,000 centrifuges, Iran will have one bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium in 12 to 14 months.4

But from what we know today about the impending nuclear deal, Iran will need much less time to “breakout” to a bomb. According to multiple press reports, Western negotiators have raised the ceiling for the number of centrifuges that Iran will be allowed to have: they have gone from 1,500 to 4,500, and they now appear to be ready to let the Iranians have 6,000 centrifuges.5 According to Einhorn’s calculations mentioned above, with 1,500 kilograms of enriched uranium and 6,000 centrifuges, Iran can produce enough weapons-grade uranium for an atomic bomb in six months.6

David Albright, formerly with the International Atomic Energy Agency, has estimated that with just 2,000-4,000 centrifuges Iran could achieve “breakout” in six months.7 Others suggest that the breakout timeline is even less than six months. For example, Congressman Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has warned that on the basis of expert testimony given to his committee, should Iran be permitted to keep just 4,000 centrifuges, it would have a breakout time of only three months.8

There are other factors that can shorten this breakout time even more. Iran has second-generation IR-2 centrifuges that are more sophisticated and powerful which have not been activated yet. The IR-5, with an even higher rate of enrichment, is in advanced stages of research and was already tested last fall.9 If these advanced centrifuges are activated, the Iranian breakout time will be cut precipitously.

Albright concluded that a six-month breakout time would be the minimum needed to allow for an effective international response – presumably U.S.-led – to an Iranian violation. Thus, the 6,000 centrifuge limit that the P5+1 negotiators are presently proposing will not allow sufficient time to respond to an Iranian breakout.

However, if the Obama administration decides to proceed, countries in the Middle East are likely to conclude that under these conditions, the United States has reached a bad agreement with Iran. The evaluation here is largely based on the number of centrifuges the agreement allows.

There are other dimensions to the nuclear deal with Iran that are no less important. Dennis Ross, who also served in the Obama administration and worked on the Iran file, co-authored an article on Jan. 23 expressing similar concerns. “During the course of the nuclear negotiations over the past year, Iran has been the beneficiary of a generous catalogue of concessions from the West,” Ross wrote. “The 5-plus-1 has conceded to Iranian enrichment, agreed that Tehran need not scale back the number of its centrifuges significantly or dismantle any facilities and could have an industrial-size program after passage of a period of time.”10

Undoubtedly, other countries in the Middle East will react to these concessions by accelerating their own nuclear programs. It was not surprising to see the news reports on Feb. 10 that Egypt was to procure a new nuclear reactor from Russia.11 Nuclear proliferation is likely to spread to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, and others. A multipolar Middle East, which is currently facing a radical Islamist wave, will have none of the stability of the East-West balance during the Cold War. A bad agreement with Iran, in short, will leave the world a much more dangerous place.

An Iranian Shahab-3 missile is launched during military maneuvers outside the city of Qom, Iran, June 28, 2011. (AP Photo/ISNA, Ruhollah Vahdati)

3 “Can Iran and the United States Make a Meaningful Deal?” Council on Foreign Relations, October 9, 2014, http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/can-iran-united-states-make-meaningful-deal/p33588

7 David Albright, Olli Heinonen, and Andrea Stricker, “Five Compromises to Avoid in a Comprehensive Agreement with Iran,” Institute for Science and International Security, June 3, 2014, http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Five_Bad_Compromises_3June2014-final.pdf

8 “Assessing a ‘Comprehensive’ Nuclear Agreement with Iran: Five Issues to Watch,” House Committee on Foreign Affairs, http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/Iran%20Five%20Key%20Issues.pdf

10 Dennis Ross, Eric Edelman and Ray Takeyh, “Time to Take It to Iran: The Stalemate over Nukes, and Now a Tehran-Backed Coup in Yemen, Show that Obama Isn’t Tough Enough,” Politico, Jan. 23, 2015, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/iran-yemen-coup-114532.html#.VNyWSU0UG70

Two notable and egregious Iranian violations during the interim
period have lent credence to the notion that the Iranians are acting in
bad faith. The first involves Iran’s heavy water plutonium facility at
Arak where the Iranians were caught purchasing materials
for the bomb-making plant, a clear violation of United Nations-imposed
restrictions on such activity. In the second instance, the mullahs were
caught feeding UF6 gas into the more advanced IR-5 centrifuges,
an act clearly prohibited under the November Joint Plan of Action
agreement.

By
now it should be readily apparent to all concerned parties that the
United States, led by Barack Obama, will not resort to the military
option to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions nor will he employ economic
sanctions. In dealing with the Islamic Republic there are essentially
three options and Obama has foreclosed two of them.

Option one favors a trilateral approach involving diplomacy coupled
with crippling sanctions and the credible threat of use of force should
sanctions fail to persuade the mullahs to change course. This option
enjoys bipartisan support in Congress and is favored by many notable
policy analysts.

Option two involves immediate military action to destroy Iran’s vast
nuclear program. No one doubts that the United States either acting
alone or in coordination with Israel can accomplish this task.
Nonetheless, few but the most hawkish of hawks believe that this option
represents responsible foreign policy.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is option three which involves
classic appeasement in the spirit of Neville Chamberlain and it is this
approach that is favored by the Obama administration. Thus far, the
torturous P5 +1 negotiations with Iran have dragged on endlessly
enduring at least two unwarranted extensions all while the Iranians
feverishly pursue their nefarious ambitions.

Two notable and egregious Iranian violations during the interim
period have lent credence to the notion that the Iranians are acting in
bad faith. The first involves Iran’s heavy water plutonium facility at
Arak where the Iranians were caught purchasing materials
for the bomb-making plant, a clear violation of United Nations-imposed
restrictions on such activity. In the second instance, the mullahs were
caught feeding UF6 gas into the more advanced IR-5 centrifuges,
an act clearly prohibited under the November Joint Plan of Action
agreement. In both cases, the transgressions were smoothed over and the
Iranians were given a mere slap on the wrist.

The lack of any meaningful US response to these serious breaches
demonstrates with utmost clarity that the administration no longer seeks
to prevent Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear power. The deal that
appears to be emerging is one that allows Iran to retain its centrifuges and other critical infrastructure necessary for production and delivery of weapons of mass destruction.

The Iranians have handedly outmaneuvered the Obama administration, something that former secretary of state George P. Schultz
warned would occur if the Obama administration adopted a lackadaisical
approach to the negotiations. In an interview with the BBC, Schultz
correctly noted that Iran is today’s premier state sponsor of world-wide
terror and that the mullahs are good at “smiling, encouraging you on
and then cutting your throat.” Unfortunately, Obama failed to heed the
secretary’s advice and the world has become a much more dangerous place
because of that.

For Israel, a nation accustomed to routine Iranian threats of
annihilation, the prospect of nuclear weapons or infrastructure capable
of developing such weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs is a
non-starter. Moreover, such a scenario would instantly spark a nuclear
arms race in the Mideast turning an already volatile region into a
powder keg. Egypt and Saudi Arabia would naturally feel compelled to arm
themselves with similar weapons as a hedge against an increasingly
imperialistic and aggressive Iran wishing to expand its hegemony and
foment unrest well beyond its borders.

Europe would not be immune either. Iran has been feverishly
developing and testing a new generation of increasingly sophisticated
ballistic missiles. Indeed, an Israeli Eros B commercial satellite
recently uncovered compelling evidence of a new Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM) capable of reaching Europe and beyond. Satellite imagery
displayed a missile of some 27 meters in length on a launch pad. The
missile, which had never before been seen in the West, is said to be
capable of delivering conventional and unconventional payloads.

Aside from the United States, the nation most capable of delivering a
decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program is Israel. With its formidable
air force, rated as the best in the world,
advanced air refueling capabilities and potent land and sea-based
surface-to-surface missile platforms, Israel is in a unique position to
launch a successful and devastating strike on Iran’s nuclear
infrastructure.

Aside from Israel, no other nation in the world has successfully
carried out a strike on an enemy nuclear bomb-making facility.
Ironically, Iran attempted to do so during the Iran-Iraq war and failed
miserably. Israel has already successfully carried out two such
operations. In 1981, its F-16 fighters destroyed Iraq’s French designed
nuclear reactor known as Osirak
situated near Baghdad. Israel was widely condemned for its actions at
the time but over the years, many, including those initially critical of
the Israeli operation, came to appreciate the prescient nature of
Israel’s actions. And In 2007, in an action dubbed Operation Orchard,
Israeli F-15s attacked and destroyed Syria’s Al Kibar nuclear complex reducing the facility into radioactive rubbish.

Should Obama conclude a deal with the Islamic Republic, one that
leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact, Israel will have no choice
but to initiate a military operation as it did in 1981 and 2007. In the
past, the administration has perfidiously done its best to thwart
Israeli military initiatives aimed at preserving regional stability. In
2012, the Obama administration inexplicably sought to sabotage
a burgeoning strategic alliance between Israel and Azerbaijan and in
2013, administration officials heightened regional tensions by leaking information linking Israel to a series of strikes against Syria aimed at preventing the flow of arms to Hezbollah.

Notwithstanding Obama’s appeasement efforts, a deal with the Islamic
Republic is not a foregone conclusion. The president must still overcome
strong bipartisan congressional objections, a prospect which seems
unlikely given the strong views of ranking members
within his own Democratic party. However, as we’ve seen countless
times, from his unauthorized release of al-Qaida operatives in
Guantanamo to his irresponsible immigration and healthcare policies,
Obama has developed a penchant for lying to the American public,
flaunting the Constitution and circumventing congress.

Any deal which attempts to circumvent congress and allows the mullahs
to retain their toys will almost certainly set off a constitutional
crisis. It will also set into motion an inevitable conflagration that
will make the world a lot less safe.

PBS may also be charged with
having broadcast religious propaganda in place of balanced educational,
instructional, and public information material, despite elaborate claims
to the contrary.The Muslim Brotherhood, in a 1991 memoir, spoke of its "work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."The role played by radical individuals in a PBS broadcast and website
raises many serious questions, not just for the trustees of PBS, but
for national agencies responsible for accuracy in the U.S. media.If PBS does not publicly correct this confusion and revoke its
association with the project, may we not ask just how trusted -- and
publicly financed -- this outlet should really be?

For more than ten years, the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research
at the University of Connecticut has singled out America's Public
Broadcasting Service (PBS) as the country's most trusted public institution. A 2012 poll for PBS,
carried out by independent survey consultants Harris Interactive and
ORC Online Caravan found that public trust in PBS (at 26%) was far
higher than in any other U.S. institution, such as the courts of law
(13%), newspapers (6%), the Federal government (5%) or Congress (4%).
That these figures have been consistent for so many years, would seem a
strong indicator of PBS's publicly funded role at the heart of America's
democracy. Almost 90% of US households with televisions watch PBS.

This resembles the situation in Great Britain, where the BBC also tops a poll
on public trust: (31%) compared to the commercial channels (17%) and
the upmarket press (15%), who come in second and third place, and well
above politicians.

Public trust in the BBC, however, has dropped severely
since the revelation of television presenter Jimmy Savile's extensive
paedophile escapades while working for the broadcaster. Savile apart,
there are many who seriously distrust the BBC's reputedly balanced news
coverage with respect to Israel and the Islamic world.

It is with Islam too that PBS betrays its own reputation for trustworthiness and lack of bias.To explain this, it would help first to see how PBS ended up, no
doubt with the best of intentions, presenting to the American public a
series of apologetics about Islam -- all still available.

One can start by concentrating on just two items: a film entitled Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet, currently available on DVD; and a website
of the same name based around it. Both the documentary and the
materials on the PBS website are more or less pure apologetics about
Muhammad and certain aspects of Islam. But more than that, serious
questions surround individuals who appear in the film and organizations
that contributed to its funding. Neither all the interviewees nor all of
the funding bodies can be said to have acted in bad faith. The focus is
on others, who have gravely exposed PBS to charges of inadequate
monitoring of textual content, interviewee selection, and association
with external agencies. They may also be charged with having broadcast,
through a film and on the internet, religious propaganda in place of
balanced educational, instructional, and public information material,
despite elaborate claims to the contrary.

The film Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet premiered on December 18, 2002, to wide praise across America. A Los Angeles Times
review described it as "a candid, thoughtful, flowing, visually
stunning film… that is as timely as documentaries get... this important
film delivers again and again." Others followed suit. The documentary
has since been rebroadcast on more than 600 individual PBS stations. The
U.S. viewership is estimated at more than 10 million. The documentary
received worldwide broadcast in many languages on National Geographic
International in December 2003, and to many other countries. The film is
used in thousands of communities, schools, universities, religious
congregations, and civic organizations throughout the United States to
increase Americans' "understanding" of Muslims and Islam. Guides to
facilitate discussions of the film's themes are available through the 20,000 Dialogues project and the Islam Project.
The DVD of the film was re-issued in 2011 and includes the dialogue
guide and lesson plans for teachers to use the film in the classroom.

This was clearly a major project that has done much to influence
American perceptions of Islam. In principle, a well-balanced film and
website, which emphasize the many positive aspects of Islam, are a
much-needed counter to many books and websites providing the American
public with exaggerated and inaccurate images of Islam and Muslims.
There is much to be gained from better knowledge and superior
information as a route to community integration within America's melting
pot. Such a project is exactly the sort of thing PBS should be broadcasting. But with Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet,
PBS lost its way and created not a balanced and educationally sound
approach to that purpose, but an explicit piece of Islamic propaganda
that presses all the buttons of Muslim missionizing (da'wa) and apologetics.

If the film and the online text had been announced as aids for
proselytization, created by an Islamic foundation and designed to
attract potential converts, there would be no need to criticize it.
Muslims have the same rights as evangelical Christians, Mormons,
Jehovah's Witnesses, Baha'is, or the followers of any other missionary
religion, sect or cult, to produce and disseminate material explaining
and summoning others to their faith. But for such a blatant document of
apologetics to be spread throughout America in the guise of a PBS
broadcast creates quite a different issue.

Because they carry the PBS imprimatur, the film and the website
appear to carry an authority beyond that of a self-certified enterprise.
Because they have solicited advice from academics, their validity and
objectivity appear assured. Because the dominant voice in the
documentary is that of Karen Armstrong, a non-Muslim and former nun, the
appearance of a strong Islamic input is negated. These and other
factors lend the work a spurious authority. We are indeed on treacherous
waters. To show just how treacherous these waters are, one must start
by looking at the sponsorship of the film and the individuals taking
part in it.

Of the 18 sponsors of the film, only two are non-Muslim and 16 are
Muslim trusts, foundations and individuals. The full list of donors is
only given on the film, not on the website. It should be clear from this
alone that it would be much to expect great balance. Many of these
sponsors seem perfectly above-board, and represent individuals who are
pious Muslims and who define themselves as loyal Americans. They do not
give cause for concern. Some are respectable in themselves but carry
other associations. Arabian Bulk Trade,
for example, is a commercial enterprise, but it is based in Saudi
Arabia, where the official religion is hardline Wahhabi Islam. Others
seem less transparent and are linked to dubious organizations.

The Sabadia Family Foundation is run by disgraced defense contractor, Rahim Sabadia
(Abdur Rahim Noormohamed), a major funder of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), outed in 2008 as an unindicted
co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation,
a significant source of funds to the terrorist group Hamas. Sabadia
donated money directly to the Holy Land Foundation (and indirectly to
Hamas), and to the American Muslim Foundation. This latter organization
was founded and run by a leading Islamist, Abdurahman Alamoudi,
a financier of al-Qa'ida and an active supporter of Hamas, Hizbullah,
and other terror groups. Alamoudi is currently serving a 23-year prison
sentence for, among other things, involvement in a conspiracy to
assassinate a Saudi prince.Sabadia has also donated generously to Islamic Relief USA, a charity linked directly to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and to radical mosques and imams in the U.S. Among these is the Masjid Al-Islam in Oakland, whose imam, Abdul Alim Musa, founded As-Sabiqun, a Hamas-supporting, anti-integrationist, anti-American radical Islamic entity.

Sabadia himself has a criminal record dating back to 1985.
Immigration authorities ordered him out of America ten years earlier,
but he used subterfuge to remain and become a U.S. citizen. David Rusin has explained:

According to a decision
from an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) district director
dated May 23, 1977, Noormohamed/Sabadia entered the U.S. from
Switzerland in January 1976 on a non-immigrant visa for business in New
York on behalf of a textile company. He soon went to Dallas and joined
his brother Moosa in a separate venture exporting electronics. When his
six-month admission was nearly up, Noormohamed/Sabadia applied for
permanent residence based on the claim that he was a qualified investor.
The INS official ruled that he did not meet the requirements, rejected
his application, and instructed him to leave the country, declaring: "It
can only be concluded that you and your brother did not enter the
United States in good faith as non-immigrants without any intention of
circumventing the quota restrictions of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended." In other words, they had planned to remain in the U.S.
from the start. The INS district director dismissed a motion to reconsider his decision, the INS regional commissioner affirmed the denial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas backed the INS, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the ruling. Yet Noormohamed/Sabadia managed to stay.

In 2010, he lost his secret-level clearance with the U.S. Navy, and
in 2014 he was tried for making "a materially false, fictitious, and
fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the
jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States."[1]

Can PBS or the video's production company, Kikim Media, have been
carrying out due diligence when taking money from a man such as Rahim
Sabadia? Apparently not. Did they do so for any of the institutions and
individuals who financed or took part in the film? Quite possibly not.

Another sponsor was the Irfan Kathwari Foundation, a pro-integration body founded by M. Farooq Kathwari,
a Kashmiri American whose son Irfan went to Afghanistan to fight the
Russians and died as a jihad fighter during an attack on Kabul. The
foundation's participation in the film certainly makes sense in an
integrationist context. But Kathwari is himself not above suspicion of radical Islamist links. In 2004, he was a speaker at the annual conference of ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America,
previously identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization as
well as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land
Foundation.

Five years later, he sponsored and acted as the keynote speaker at a
conference held by the Kashmir Corps and co-sponsored by the Muslim Student Association (MSU), a Saudi-funded organization established by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. and an associate of ISNA.The Muslim Brotherhood, in a 1991 memoir, spoke of its "work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within," and referred to the MSU as an associate body.[2]

Kathwari's work for integration may be genuine, inspired by the
growing alienation of Muslims in the U.S. But his connections to Muslim
Brotherhood-linked bodies suggest at best a lack of care in his
associations and identify him, not as a thorough radical, but as a
believer with strong convictions that influence the causes to which his
foundation donates.

It is difficult to report on the remaining eleven individuals and
couples who have donated to the PBS project, often because it is
difficult to identify them distinctly from others of the same name.
Those who can be identified appear to be without connections to any form
of Islamic radicalism. There is, however, one exception. Jukaku Tayeb, who has served as president of the Michigan chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR),
which was recently declared a terrorist group by the United Arab
Emirates and Egypt. There he served under its executive director, Dawud Walid, an anti-American, anti-Israeli radical. Here again, it would seem as if due diligence was not performed.

A total of 20 advisors, all apparently acting in a personal capacity,
worked with the production team. Of these, only three are non-Muslims
-- but non-Muslims with a marked reputation as apologists for Islam. The
majority seem above reproach and are not remarkable as providers of
information on the life of the prophet or the beliefs and activities of
ordinary Muslims living in the United States. There is much to be
commended in the latter thread, as will be seen when we come to examine
the individuals who appear in the film to share their convictions and
personal histories.

Some of the advisors, however, give cause for concern. Muzammil Siddiqi studied initially at the Salafi Islamic University of Medina, the world's core educational centre for Islamic radicalism.[3]
From 1976 to 1980, he worked for the Wahhabi Muslim World League's
Office to the United Nations. He later acted as president of the Muslim
Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) between 1997
and 2000, before being invited to act as an advisor to the Muhammad film
project. He has made public statements endorsing the execution of homosexuals and has called for the eventual governance of the U.S. by Muslims through shari'a law. As early as 1992, he acted as a translator for Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, "The Blind Sheikh," a radical terrorist imam who planned the first World Trade Center bombing
one year later. Siddiqi supported jihad in Afghanistan and Israel, and
stated that he hopes for an Islamic state to control what is now Israel
and the Palestinian territories. All his links from an early age are
terrorist-connected and radical. How did the PBS fail to see this when
none of the information was secret?

Ingrid Mattson, a convert to Islam, was described as, "Perhaps the most noticed figure among American Muslim women" in a 2010 New York Times article. She served as the head of ISNA up to 2010. Campus Watch has used direct quotations from her speeches and writings to identify her as a radical.
Mattson says that "People of faith have a certain kind of solidarity
with others of their faith community that transcends the basic rights
and duties of citizenship." She denies that there are jihadist sleeper
cells in the U.S. She defends the extremist Wahhabi form of Islam. She
praises the father of modern Islamic radicalism, Abu Ala Mawdudi. She
has claimed more than once that "Muslim women have the same legal rights
as Muslim men," which is patent nonsense.[4]
She has spoken of the "brutality" of the Israel government. She rejects
dialogue or friendship with many non-Muslims: "it is not permitted for a
Muslim to maintain a close friendship with a highly intelligent person
who engages him or her in stimulating conversation, if that person
continuously derides the sacred." (All citations are based on the Campus
Watch article.) Again, no due diligence seems to have been carried out
by PBS.

Another advisor, Zahid Bukhari, later served as president
of the Islamic Council of North America (ICNA), co-founded the National
Islamic Shura Council, which consists of ISNA and ICNA, and has been
chaired by the formerly mentioned Muzammil Siddiqi. Bukhari has stated
that "Muslims may have difficulties with ... Jews because of founding of
the state of Israel."

In line with this, Al-Hibri has bafflingly asserted that the Qur'an
encourages freedom of religion, freedom of thought, and democratic,
consultative government. Indeed, she adds, even more bafflingly, the
very concept of the separation of church and state came from Islam. None
of those statements is true, nor can anyone who has read the Qur'an or
studied shari'a law imagine they are. Given that the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death, and that Islam means "submission,"[5]
neither freedom of religion nor freedom of thought seems to be an
Islamic value. And since an authentic Muslim society must rely on laws
"revealed" by God, which may not be altered or added to, and must be
governed by a caliph (or, for the Shi'a, an Imam), democracy and
democratic laws, which are created by man, are totally anathema.

There is more whitewashing of this kind in the narratives and testimonies within the film and the texts on the website.

Finally, less is known of advisor Faizul Khan, other than that he was
an ISNA member and the Assistant Director of the Wahhabi Muslim World
League chapter in New York.

Again, there is nothing to suggest that the majority of the film
project's funders and advisors are anything but sincere, moderate and
patriotic American Muslims. However, several who have been and, in some
cases, still are associated with radical Islamist organizations, are
clearly propagandists working to an agenda that exaggerates the glories
of Islam while whitewashing the negative aspects of the faith or the
activities of Wahhabis, Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood or other people
whose long-term aim is to supplant a democratic America with a strict
form of Islamic rule. Today's radicals take their inspiration from a
range of writers whose works are freely available in the United States: Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (1906-1949); Sayyid Qutb, the MB's most famous ideologue (1906-1966), and Sayyid Abu'l-A'la Mawdudi.
These men, like their hundreds of thousands of protégés round the
world, advocated a total remaking of all political systems, replacing
democracy with absolutist Islamic rule under the jurisdiction of shari'a
law.

The role played by radical individuals in a PBS broadcast and website
raises many serious questions, not just for the trustees of the PBS but
for national agencies responsible for accuracy in the U.S. media.

Let us examine the identities of the individuals who appear in the
film as narrators or interviewees. As with the donors and advisors,
doubtless most of those who took part in the film were innocent of
ulterior motives. Najah Bazzy, a Muslim Critical Care Nurse from
Dearborn, for example, comes across as a shining example of a devout
woman devoted to her patients, an American citizen whose family is well
integrated in wider society, and a model of faith-inspired care for
humanity. So too, Kevin James, a convert who works as a Supervising Fire
Marshall for the New York Fire Department and who was one of the
firemen to attend the World Trade Center after its destruction on
9/11/2001, is a fine American whose faith inspires him to his duties as a
citizen and service within his faith community. Much of the film is
devoted to showing the many ways in which Muslim Americans strive for
acceptance and to do good in the world. They are solid refutations of
the tirades many Muslims in the West have suffered.

Of the sixteen named participants, only three are non-Muslims,
although viewers may be forgiven for thinking that Karen Armstrong, who
provides the strongest voice here, is the most devoted to Muhammad as a
great man and a prophet. The materials on the website were written and
edited by Michael Wolfe of Kikim Media, a convert; Alexander Kroenemer,
co-founder of Unity Productions Foundation, also a convert, and Michael
Schwarz, a Jew, and by members of the advisory board.

Karen Armstrong, who provides the strongest voice in the film Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet,
comes across as a starry-eyed ingénue and the most devoted to Muhammad
as a great man and a prophet. Her incompetence as a historian and her
naivety in uncritical defense of her idol make her dangerous. (Image
source: Video screenshot from Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet)

Professor John Voll
of Georgetown University is a recognized scholar of Islam who appears
several times in the movie. His credentials should not be questioned,
but his evident bias towards Muhammad and Islam makes him less a neutral
observer than an apologist. When the University of South Florida (USF)
fired Sami Al-Arian, a professor charged with aiding the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Voll condemned USF
for "caving in to public pressure at the expense of academic
integrity," citing "McCarthyite popular pressures for dismissal." Arian
was finally deported from the United States on February 6, 2015.

Voll has also tried to explain away Islamic terrorism as a hostile
response to American power, suggesting that, if American might were
absent, there would be no need for terrorism. This leaves unexplained
earlier Salafi rejection of the West in general from fear of modernity,
democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and human rights
legislation.

Another prominent speaker is M. Cherif Bassiouni,
Emeritus Professor of Law at DePaul University, where he taught from
1964-2012. He is an Egyptian-American who moved to the U.S. in 1961.
Bassiouni is often referred to as "the father of international criminal law" and is the author of a book entitled, Crimes against Humanity.
He has held many positions in the United Nations, has received awards
and medals by the dozen, and in 1999 was nominated for a Nobel Prize. A
formidable figure indeed, it is not surprising that he was chosen to
speak several times in the film. An intelligent and persuasive author
who speaks about the dangers of "Islamophobia" and modern jihadi
violence, he nevertheless dismisses critics of Islam and defends several
extremist groups. In a 2007 interview
with Iran's Press TV, Bassiouni opposed the boycott of Hamas. "Hamas,"
he says, "was democratically elected and is not a violent movement. The
statement in its charter about Israel's destruction does not imply it
poses a threat to Israel or the world. This is just not true," he
stressed.

That a man of such erudition and a compelling knowledge of human
rights would say that Hamas "is not a violent movement" is profoundly
worrying. In a lengthy essay
published by Loonwatch in 2010, Bassiouni writes well about genuine
Islamophobia but defends Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation, CAIR, ISNA and
other groups. He also attacks Israel for defending itself -- without
suggesting what else it might do, apart from surrender -- and argues, as
so many do, that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam or the
Qur'an. This, despite the constant use of Qur'anic verses and hadith selections by Islamic State, Hamas, al-Qa'ida and others to justify their actions in conformity with the shari'a law of jihad. This is congruent with Bassiouni's membership
of the Advisory Board of the Free Gaza Movement, alongside some of the
most notorious anti-Semitic and anti-Israel activists, from Noam Chomsky
to John Pilger and British Baroness Tonge. In 2010, Bassiouni openly supported the Free Gaza Movement and its flotilla,
which not only included armed extremists, but also broke maritime law
by entering a restricted area without permission. That was hardly an
honest position for an acclaimed professor of law to take. On several
occasions, he challenged the FBI
in court for the right to amend documents in which he was linked with
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and other paramilitary
organizations. On each occasion, his appeals were turned down.

Here, perhaps more than ever, it is clear that PBS did not exercise
due diligence. Bassiouni will have seemed beyond reproach, but it is
perfectly clear that in his defense of Islam, he is an extremist. He
uses his position to cover up anything that might prove either an
embarrassment to Muslims or a criticism of Islam. He has argued, for example, in the Chicago Tribune
and elsewhere, that Islamic law does not punish apostasy -- a statement
that might have come as a surprise to the many thousands of Muslim
apostates and heretics who have been executed from the time of Muhammad
to the present day. In its Freedom of Thought 2013
report, the International Humanist and Ethical Union found that
apostates (including atheists) and blasphemers can be sentenced to death
in 13 countries, all of which are Muslim states. To what extent,
therefore, can Bassiouni be trusted as an objective authority on Islamic
law?

Having revealed the extremism of some of the project's funders,
advisors and on-screen speakers, it is important to say again that there
is much in the film that pleases. The most regular presence is the
critical care nurse Najah Baggy, at work, with her family, and
volunteering with a charity. Kevin James, the fireman and arson
investigator, is a charismatic and sincere advocate of balanced
integration. Muslims such as these are ordinary Americans who order
their lives through a pious application of the ethics and principles of a
deeply ingrained religious faith.

There are lessons to be learned from such scenes, lessons of
tolerance towards Muslims who are actively well-integrated within U.S.
society, who understand American values, and who are no different from
the country's loyal Jews, Mormons, Amish, Baha'is, and other members of
minority faith communities.

It is not this aspect of the film that deserves criticism. Quite the
opposite. What causes concern is simply the powerful influence exerted
on film and text by Muslims who are, as shown, not particularly
integrated or who positively resist any real integration at all.

Equally, it is important to focus on the narrative of the prophet
Muhammad that runs through the documentary and the online texts. As
mentioned, this narrative is far from balanced or neutral. It does not
serve as a genuine educational text, despite having been circulated so
widely to American schools and college students in the absence of
anything to reflect a different point of view -- not least a neutral and
accurate interpretation of Muhammad and Islam.

The narrative of the film is thoroughly hagiographic. Hagiography is
not considered as a proper basis for history in modern U.S.
non-religious educational institutions. The film's Muhammad narrative
departs not an inch from traditional Islamic accounts, from Ibn Ishaq to
current missionary pamphlets. It avoids any of the issues that have
been raised about Muhammad's life and prophetic career over the past
sixty or so years by Western scholars, such as William Montgomery Watt, the French Marxist historian and linguist Maxime Rodinson, whose biography Mohammed
was controversial in the Muslim world, or Princeton's Patricia Crone,
whose erudite and groundbreaking studies of the earliest Islamic period
sent ripples through academic circles.

In order to exemplify this lack of critical content and attitude, it will be enough to focus on the contribution made to Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet by popular British writer Karen Armstrong, of whom Hugh Fitzgerald has written:
"For Karen Armstrong history does not exist. It is putty in the hands
of the person who writes about history. You use it to make a point, to
do good as you see it. And whatever you need to twist or omit is
justified by the purity of your intentions -- and Karen Armstrong always
has the purest of intentions."

Here are some examples of Armstrong's take on Islam, taken almost at random from her book, Islam: A Short History
(2000). "The emancipation of women was a project dear to the Prophet's
heart" (p. 14), or "... Jews, like Christians, enjoyed full religious
liberty in the Islamic empires. Anti-Semitism is a Christian vice....
Hatred of the Jews became marked in the Muslim world only after the
creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent loss of Arab
Palestine" (p. 18), or this: "the word islam is etymologically related to salam
[peace], and in these early years Islam did promote cohesion and
concord" (p. 21)." This last really does show Armstrong's
amateurishness. The words islam and salam do indeed come from the same root, but islam is derived from a totally different verbal form and means "submission," not "peace."

On screen, Armstrong comes across as a starry-eyed ingénue, even more
in awe and wonderment of the prophet of Islam than any of the Muslims
in the film. Her incompetence as a historian and her naivety in
uncritical defense of her idol make her a dangerous woman, insofar as
she blocks all routes to an as-accurate-as-possible understanding of a
man who brought about great changes in the world, yet sparked off
centuries of jihad, unequal treatment of non-Muslims; divided the
world between his believers and all other humans, and who must,
therefore, be subjected to a combination of praise and criticism.

Here are some of Armstrong's ruminations on Muhammad and his impact
on Arab society, taken from the PBS documentary: "He [Muhammad] brought
peace and new hope to Arabia." In fact, immediately after Muhammad's
death on June 8, 632, rivalries between his Meccan and Medinan followers
burst out, while many Arab tribes abandoned the new faith. The first
caliph, Abu Bakr,
sent out armed forces to drive the apostate tribes back to Islam or to
slaughter those who refused, thereby launching the Wars of the Ridda
(Apostasy) that lasted for a year or more. Under the third and fourth
caliphs, civil war broke out between Muslims. Muhammad's grandson
Husayn, with his family and followers were slaughtered ruthlessly by the
forces of the Caliph Yazid at the Battle of Karbala in 680. And while
all this was happening, half the world was reeling under the impact of
the Arab jihad conquests. "Peace and new hope?"

Armstrong praises Muhammad's care for the well-being of women without
mentioning his use of captured women as concubines for his troops, or
men's freedom to divorce their wives or to marry more than one woman and
take concubines. She discusses Muhammad's most beloved wife, A'isha,
but make no mention of her being nine years old when her marriage was
consummated. She deals with the massacre in 627 of the males of a Jewish
tribe, the Banu Qurayza,
and the enslavement of all their women and children, but in doing so,
she places all the blame on the Jews, describing their many supposed
defects, and agreeing that they were punished for supposed treachery.
She summarizes matters thus: "This cannot be seen as anti-Semitism per se. Muhammad had nothing against the Jewish people per se or the Jewish religion." It is as if she has never read the Qur'an's many anti-Semitic verses dictated in his later years. Here are some:

"God has cursed them [the Jews] on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little." Qur'an 4:46.

"See how they [the Jews] forge the lie against God, and this is sufficient as a manifest sin." [4:50]

"For the iniquity of the Jews did We forbid them the good things
which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many
(people) from God's way. And their taking usury though indeed they were
forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We
have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful
chastisement."

"On account of their [the Children of Israel] breaking their
covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the
words [of God] from their places and they neglected a portion of what
they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them
excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah
loves those who do good (to others)."

At 1:22:56, Armstrong develops this simplistic account of Muhammad
and the Jews: "The Qur'an continues to tell Muslims to honour the
peoples of the Book [Jews and Christians] and to honour their religions
as authentic."

In fact, the later passages of the Qur'an do nothing of the sort, as
we have just seen; Armstrong, who claims to be a scholar of Islam,
should know that. Jewish and Christian beliefs are derided (such as that
the Trinity constitutes polytheism; that Jesus is not the Son of God;
that the crucifixion was a fake; that the Torah and Gospels were
tampered with by their priests and rabbis), and that Muslims are told
not to take Jews and Christians as friends: "O you who believe! do not
take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each
other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he
is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Qur'an
5:51 and elsewhere).

According to al-Bukhari, the words: "those who earn Thine anger and those who go astray" in the most recited sura (1) of the Qur'an refers specifically to the Jews and Christians (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, Book 12, hadith 749).

Armstrong then goes on: "And the Jewish tribes who had not given help
to the Meccans continued to live in Medina completely unmolested.
Muhammad was not trying to exterminate and to get rid of very dangerous
internal enemies." What on earth is she saying? The massacre of the Banu
Qurayza took place in the year 627, immediately after the Battle of the
Trench. By then Muhammad had already expelled the other two Jewish
tribes in Medina: the Banu Qaynuqa in 624 and the Nadir in 625. And
Armstrong fails to mention that in 628 Muhammad himself led an
expedition to the Jewish oasis of Khaybar, where the Banu Nadir had
found refuge with other Jewish tribes. Muhammad then defeated the Jews
in the Battle of Khaybar, took their land and imposed heavy quotas on
their produce afterwards. Has Armstrong never heard the oft-repeated
chant "Khaybar, Khaybar, Ya Yahud: Jaysh Muhammad sa-ya'ud"? "[Remember] Khaybar, oh you Jews: the army of Muhammad is coming back!"?

In the same section, Armstrong further distorts history when she says
that, after his victory over the Meccans, Muhammad "stopped the
fighting." This is also a total re-write of historical fact. During his
career, Muhammad ordered or accompanied one hundred raids and expeditions.
He conquered Mecca in December 629. Between then and his death in 632,
he sent out forces on 28 expeditions and battles, including an
expedition to Tabuk, which effectively began the Arab invasion of the
Byzantine empire and the wider Arab conquests to the east and west. In
May 632, about three months before his death, Muhammad sent out an army
under Usama bin Zayd that invaded Palestine. The local population there
were "slaughtered" by Muslims, who went about "destroying, burning and
taking as many captives as they could".[6]

Why on earth would a PBS documentary feature -- more prominently than
anyone -- a woman with no academic expertise in Islam, no apparent
knowledge of any Islamic language, no background in Islamic historical
research, who delivered a hagiographic approach to the biography of the
prophet -- all accompanied by a marked tendency to exaggerate, distort,
and omit facts? And this lack is coupled with her own uncritical
missionary zeal for her spiritual quest in the belief that all religions
are wonderful and that everything about Islam is unbelievably,
super-duper, far above all we have ever thought. Why would a
non-historian with evangelical zeal for fantasy be allowed to speak in
any film even purporting to be a documentary?

It would matter far less if this were aired as fiction, or a project by an overtly recognized Muslim da'wa [outreach] organization.

The problem is that the propaganda and apologetics are hidden from
the public, and the whole thing is presented under the flag of America's
most trusted institution. If PBS does not publicly correct this
confusion and revoke its association with the project, may we not ask
just how trusted -- and publicly-financed -- this outlet should really
be?

Denis MacEoin is a lecturer in Arabic and Islamic
Studies and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He
has contributed to the massive "Encyclopedia of Islam" (2nd ed.), the "Encyclopedia Iranica," the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World" and other reference works on Islam.

[1] For further details of Sabadia, see David J. Rusin, "Rahim Sabadia: Portrait of a Disgraced Defense Contractor," PJ Media, 28 May 2014, and Matt Pearce, Brook Williams, "Did Islamic charities cost security contractor his security clearance?" Orange County Register, June 3, 2011, and an Immigration and Naturalization Service document.[2] For more on the MSA, see "Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA)," Discover the Networks, and links listed there; also, links here.[3] For fuller details of this institution and its role in radicalizing Muslims in the West, see Chris Heffelfinger, Radical Islam in America: Salafism's Journey from Arabia to the West,
Washington D.C., 2011, pp. 64 ff.; Michael Farquhar, "The Islamic
University of Medina since 1961: The Politics of Religious Mission and
the Making of Modern Salafi Pedagogy," Conference paper.[4]
In Islamic law, a woman can only marry one man at a time, whereas a man
may marry up to four women and take concubines. A Muslim woman may only
marry a Muslim, but a Muslim man may also marry a Jewish or Christian
woman. A woman's inheritance is normally half that of a man's. In cases
of divorce, a woman may only be granted custody of her children up to
the age of seven, whereupon it is automatically awarded to the father. A
man has the right to divorce his wife just by saying "I divorce you,"
but a woman must apply for a khula, for which she has to return
her dowry, obtain her husband's consent, and seek a judicial ruling. If a
man wants to remarry a divorced wife, she has to marry and have sexual
relations with another man, who must then divorce her. A man is legally
entitled to demand sex with his wife at any time or in any place, and if
she does not comply "the angels will curse her until dawn." In
countries such as Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, women are required
to wear part or full veils. Men have few restrictions on dress.[5] The word "islam" is a verbal noun from the Arabic verb aslama. Aslama is from the same root as salama,
meaning to make peace, but it is a totally different form of the root,
which produces several complete verbs, nouns, adjectives etc. Âslama means "to surrender or to submit".[6] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 31-32Denis MacEoin is a lecturer in Arabic and Islamic
Studies and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He
has contributed to the massive "Encyclopedia of Islam" (2nd ed.), the "Encyclopedia Iranica," the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World" and other reference works on Islam.Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5211/pbs-islam Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Islamic conversion phenomenon includes thousands in Europe, the USA, Australia and even Israel. A small number of converts goes one step further – quite a large step – and joins the Jihad in Syria and Iraq. What make them do it?

Written in Hebrew for Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky

One of the things that worries the West is the fact that hundreds and maybe even thousands of young Europeans are converting to Islam, and some of them are joining terror groups and ISIS and returning to promote Jihad against the society in which they were born, raised and educated. The security problem posed by these young people is a serious one, because if they hide their cultural identity, it is extremely difficult for Western security forces to identify them and their evil intentions. This article will attempt to clarify the reasons that impel these young people to convert to Islam and join terrorist organizations.

The sources for this article are recordings made by the converts themselves, and the words they used, written here, are for the most part unedited direct quotations.Many of the converts are convinced that Islam is a religion of peace, love, affection and friendship, based on the generous hospitality and warm welcome they receive from the Moslem friends in their new social milieu. In many instances, a young person born into an individualistic, cold and alienating society finds that Muslim society provides – at college, university or community center – a warm embrace, a good word, encouragement and help, things that are lacking in the society from which he stems. The phenomenon is most striking in the case of those who grew up in dysfunctional families or divorced homes, whose parents are alcoholics, drug addicts, violent and abusive, or parents who take advantage of their offspring and did not give their children a suitable emotional framework and model for building a normative, productive life.

The convert sees his step as a mature one based on the right of an individual to determine his own religious and cultural identity, even if the family and society he is abandoning disagree. Sometimes converting to Islam is a form of parental rebellion. Often, the convert is spurned by his family and surrounding society for his decision, but the hostility felt towards Islam by his former environment actually results in his having more confidence in the need for his conversion. Anything said against conversion to Islam is interpreted as unjustified racism and baseless Islamophobia.

The Islamic convert is told by Muslims that Islam respects the prophets of its mother religions, Judaism and Christianity, is in favor of faith in He Who dwells on High, believes in the Day of Judgment, in reward and punishment, good deeds and avoiding evil. He is convinced that Islam is a legitimate religion as valid as Judaism and Christianity, so if his parents are Jewish or Christian, why can't he become Muslim? He sees a good many positive and productive Muslims who benefit their society and its economy, who have integrated into the environment in which he was raised, so why not emulate them? Most Muslims are not terrorists, so neither he nor anyone should find his joining them in the least problematic.

Converts to Islam report that reading the Koran and uttering the prayers add a spiritual meaning to their lives after years of intellectual stagnation, spiritual vacuum and sinking into a materialistic and hedonistic lifestyle. They describe the switch to Islam in terms of waking up from a bad dream, as if it is a rite of passage from their inane teenage years. Their feeling is that the Islamic religion has put order into their lives, granted them a measuring stick to assess themselves and their behavior, and defined which actions are allowed and which are forbidden, as opposed to their "former" society, which couldn't or wouldn't lay down rules. They are willing to accept the limitations Islamic law places on Muslims, thereby "putting order into their lives" after "a life of inanity" that they led before "discovering the light" of Islam that cleansed them from all their past sins and mistakes.

Some converts talk about their five prayers a day as an encouraging and strengthening experience, one that was missing from their previous lives. The direct, constant contact with the Heavens, from pre-dawn until the sun sets, gives them the feeling that He Who lives on High holds their hand, leads them in the paths of life, counsels and helps them deal with daily hardships. They feel that Islam has provided them with the spiritual food they hungered for.

The Islamization process is not immediate. It can take months and even years. The convert advances step after step, adopting something new at each stage: refraining from drinking alcohol (a positive step for anyone); avoiding pork (while being taught, correctly or not, that pork harms one's health); allowed one prayer per day in his native language; perusal of Islamic philosophic texts which he receives for almost nothing and which he sees as widening his intellectual horizons; going to prayer in a mosque, usually with Muslim friends; meeting the Imam who gives the convert explanations on Islam; meeting other converts who can talk to him using the conceptual world they share.

Sometimes a trip to an Islamic country is part of the conversion process, a trip which lets the convert observe the "real life" of Muslims, identify with their problems and rejoice at their happiness. Many young Westerners, taught to identify with the unfortunate, poor and persecuted, see Western society's behavior towards Muslim immigrants as discriminatory and wrong, a situation that makes them identify with these unfortunates living at the economic, social and political borderlines of society.

Empathizing with Muslim suffering awakens the young person's curiosity. He wants to get to know the culture of these persecuted people, he sees their religion as exotic and romantic, as something he would do well to know better.

One of the significant sources of converts in the USA is the prison system, and there, the overwhelming majority of converts are African Americans. Thousands of them see Islam as a return to roots dating from the days before their ancestors were sold into slavery. They generally do not know that the biggest slave traders were Muslim Arabs that overran idol-worshipping African villages and sold their inhabitants into slavery. And in Arabic, blacks are still called "slaves".

African American conversion to Islam also stems from a desire to leave "white" society, perceived as Christian, and to take revenge for the slavery of the past as well as for the suffering inflicted by current discrimination and shunting aside.

There are chaplains in American prisons who provide religious services and spiritual support to those serving jail sentences. Among them, naturally, are imams who open the doors of Islam to prisoners. A charismatic imam can easily persuade prisoners to adopt his religion.

There have been cases where the conversion of one member of a family influenced siblings and other relatives to follow in his footsteps.Young women are attracted to Islam because it offers them a society that espouses morals and modesty, something that is often non-existent in their former lives. They are sick of a life of permissiveness, promiscuity, hedonism, drugs and drink, all characteristics of the lives they led beforehand. Islam offers them a clean, sane, orderly and moral life, something they were missing. The rules of Islam mandate distance between the sexes and they like that, after years of sexual behavior that has no rules or limits. Young women who were victims of sexual abuse find comfort in Islam, along with honor and appreciation, in contrast to the humiliation they experienced before they converted.

The converts' parents see their joining Islam as equivalent to joining a cult, and some describe it as the "cult of Satan" that brainwashes their children and makes them vulnerable victims of emotional manipulation. They are deeply disappointed by their children's decision to convert to Islam and feel that their children are not only lost to them, but have lost their own identity. Some see their children's action as betrayal of the family, their society and the land in which they were born and educated.

They fear that they may become terrorists. Most live in hope that the conversion is temporary, simply a youthful prank and that they will sober up, return to sanity and leave Islam.

The Islamic conversion phenomenon includes thousands in Europe, the USA, Australia and even Israel. A small number of converts goes one step further – quite a large step – and joins the Jihad in Syria and Iraq. This is not new as, after all, there were converts in the ranks of al Qaeda.

The rise of ISIS gave the conversion phenomenon a big push forward, as thousands joined Jihad – many from countries with Christian majorities – in order to fight in the holy war for Allah. The large number of Western converts form a pool which acts as a significant reserve , even if only a small percentage eventually joins Jihad.

This is how the Muslim migration to Europe, America and Australia gains added significance in that young people born in these countries are exposed to Islam as an alternative to the culture in which they were raised. The challenge facing Western democracies is how to deal with this phenomenon and remain unscathed. This challenge is surfacing in all its seriousness right now, as masses of converts turn into a public from which a certain percentage turns into bloodthirsty Jihadists.

Written in Hebrew for Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel SylvetskyDr. Mordechai KedarSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16461#.VNzw4S6zchQ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

PLO official Hanan Ashrawi claims Palestinian
leaders worked with U.S. and Israeli officials to combat terrorism
during Second Intifada • PA, PLO fighting lawsuit that could compel them
to pay $3 billion to victims of terrorist attacks in Israel.

Top Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi took
the witness stand in New York on Tuesday as the Palestinian Authority
and the Palestinian Liberation Organization fight a lawsuit that would
force them to pay up to $3 billion to victims of Palestinian terrorist
attacks in Israel.

Victims and their families have sued the PA
and the PLO over six shootings and bombings in the Jerusalem area from
2002 to 2004 that killed 33 people and wounded more than 450, saying the
defendants provided support to the terrorists who carried out the
attacks.

Lawyers for the Palestinians have argued in a
U.S. federal court that their government should not be held responsible
for the actions of a few individuals who acted on their own or at the
behest of outside terrorist groups such as Hamas.

Ashrawi, a member of the PLO's executive
committee, said she and other leaders, including the late Yasser Arafat,
worked with U.S. and Israeli officials to combat terrorism during those
years.

"It didn't serve the cause of the Palestinian
Authority or the PLO, nor the cause of freedom," she said of the
terrorist attacks.

Her testimony, which lasted about two hours, followed that of Majid Faraj, the PA's head of intelligence.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have accused the
Palestinians of making payments to individuals convicted of terrorism as
a means of supporting their actions.

Faraj told the jurors the payments were
intended to help the convicted men's families and remove economic
reasons for them to engage in further attacks.

During cross-examination, Kent Yalowitz, a
lawyer for the plaintiffs, asked Faraj about Abdullah Barghouti, accused
of being one of Hamas' chief bomb-makers in the early 2000s.

Faraj had testified earlier that Barghouti
escaped from Palestinian custody in 2002. Yalowitz, however, showed
Faraj an Israeli police report in which Barghouti said the Palestinian
security forces allowed him to go free, despite his alleged role in
several attacks.

Faraj said he did not know the source of the police report.

Barghouti was later arrested by Israel and eventually sentenced to life in prison.